Articles concerning 2D-quality at tecchannel and c't.

[Indiana]

Not sure if this fits better into general hardware or into Matrox hardware...

There is a quite well-done article at tecchannel, comparing 50 gfx-cards (Unfortunately in german, but the table with the results listing the cards from worst to best is self explaining) - with a not very surprising result: the G550 took the top position, especially the GF2/4MX variants came out at the worst positions.
Other interesting findings: as stated by some people here earlier, the G450 is not really top with respect to 2D signal-quality and the Radeon8500 while still under the better cards has lower signal-quality than the old Radeon64DDR (which is corresponding with my own findings).
Another thing to note is that ATIs FireGL pro cards do seem to have quite a bit better signal-quality then the consumer R8500, interesting also that Hercules' R8500 based cards are beating the ATI R8500 easily.

In the new c't (the best german computer magazine) there is another article about image-quality of NVidia GF4 Ti cards. Out of 19 tested cards, 18 got a "mediocre" or "bad" rating! Only the VisionTek Xtasy Ti4600 got a "good"...

[Nuno]

That´s questionable. GF4Ti aren´t the best on 2D quality, but "mediocre" or "bad" is very strong. My Creative Ti 4400 displays a "good" to "very good" image, while my G400 would be rated as "excellent".

I run at 1280x960x32@85Hz BTW. At 1600x1200 it could be more noticeable but my monitor is more a bottleneck that the video card at that res.

Another thing not to be forgotten is how GF4 accelerates WinXP 2D effects. Believe me, it´s a world of difference from a KyroII to a GF4 on that matter.

[Indiana]

Well, these results are based on measurements of the signal-output on these cards, so they are factual, nothing solely "opinion-based".
At 1280x960 the gfxcard must be extremely crappy to look really bad.

BTW, the Kyro II is rated about the same as the Creative GF4Ti 4400 regarding singal-quality.

[Nuno]

Well, actually tests were done at 1280x1024x32.
Some things are very interesting indeed. Like (as you pointed) the quality of Hercules ATI cards. That the signal of G550 is much better than G450, but when G550 was out some complained about 2d crispiness wasn´t as good as G4x0 cards, while others pointed the opposite. Or the Creative Ti4400 having poorer signal than the MSI Ti4400, because they´re actually the exact same hardware (MSI does Creative GF4 cards).
What I think is there is too much individual variety between the same card model.

[Indiana]

The individual variety between cards of the same make can still be explained easily with variances in the used parts, esp. the filters - they tend to be bigger on el-cheapo filters than they are (should be) on HQ ones.c

[az]

Yup. The c't test used two cards of each model thus

Ah and the best rating in c't would be "very good", with "good" following, then "mediocre", "bad", and "very bad"

AZ

[Greebe]

True but we also know that in the case of the G450 there were speed versions ranging from 125 to 166mHz... if they have two of the pokey ones well then there is your flaw in the test